Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mmmpi, if you've got the evidence and whatnot to back up your statements, just repost 'em.

I'm relatively certain the evidence boils down to "GW says they should be separate", "I like having my own, separate Codex", and "but what if I lose units and flavor".

Basically, I'm asking you to justify the mechanical differences of generic units that require them to need a seperate datasheet, that cannot just be covered by stratagems, Vigilus-style Formations, or bespoke Chapter Tactics, beyond "they've always had separate entries!", because that wasn't true prior to "Angels of Death".

Me.

You mean besides different squad sizes, special rules, and at the time equipment options? Sure the current specialty speeders weren't around. But for a time, RW got unique speeders, and even after they became shared out, they still had rules that regular marines didn't get.
Justification done. Remember, stratagems cost CP, still take up room in the book, and can be countered by other stratagems. Formations require more space in books, you're really not saving space.

So yeah, I did point out the differences. I just refused to list EVERY difference in EVERY unit, in EVERY non-codex marine army for over twenty years.

This is just one of several posts.

I should also point out, another poster DID list much of the above, only to have it dismissed out of hand.
It's not hard to tell when the goalposts are shifting. I've spoken to enough creationists to be familiar with it when it happens.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Basically, I'm asking you to justify the mechanical differences of generic units that require them to need a seperate datasheet, that cannot just be covered by stratagems, Vigilus-style Formations, or bespoke Chapter Tactics, beyond "they've always had separate entries!", because that wasn't true prior to "Angels of Death".

Me.

You mean besides different squad sizes, special rules, and at the time equipment options? Sure the current specialty speeders weren't around. But for a time, RW got unique speeders, and even after they became shared out, they still had rules that regular marines didn't get.
Justification done. Remember, stratagems cost CP, still take up room in the book, and can be countered by other stratagems. Formations require more space in books, you're really not saving space.

So yeah, I did point out the differences.

At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest, no, not really. Look at the bolded sections.
My post can be broken down to "justify why they're different".
Your post? "They have different things".


This is exactly my point - there was no detail, no elaboration or attempt to "justify" why there were those differences beyond that they existed. Now, perhaps this was just a poor misunderstanding and you missed what I was actually saying, fair enough, we all make mistakes - but now that I've laid it out more clearly, could you actually answer the question? (Specifically the "justify why" part.)

I just refused to list EVERY difference in EVERY unit, in EVERY non-codex marine army for over twenty years.

The burden of proof was on you. And obviously I didn't expect every single difference of every single unit, but surely there must have been something critical, some crucial difference that sets them apart. And I didn't even get that.
Something like "Ravenwing Bikers are deserving of a different datasheet because they all have the Jink ability!" (which I would have immediately countered with how White Scars Bikers also possess a unique ability that other Chapters' Bikers don't get, and that they do just fine with being a supplement - but that's irrelevant) would have sufficed.

That I was more willing to go out and discover them myself in order to have a better understanding of your argument doesn't change how you essentially refused evidence. And that wouldn't really be an issue, if that was where you stopped interacting. But when this has been carrying on for several pages now of "you didn't post anything"/"yes I did", and now you admit that you didn't really go into your point in detail, maybe it would have been worth just posting the details sooner.

At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest, no, not really. Look at the bolded sections.
My post can be broken down to "justify why they're different".
Your post? "They have different things".

isn't justification enough, the fact that they had separate and different rules in the past. All different law systems work like that. Why do states no just use other states medical research when approving drugs. Or why countries just don't decided that instead of trying to figure out their own stuff for 200-300 years, they are just going to take the british or german common law and use that. DA/SW/BA rules existed as separate rule sets, with different rules from marine ones for multiple decades. Saying that they are not different, and asking for proof seems very strange. Aren't the 30 years of separate books proof enough?

And the second argument in favour of separate rules is that fandom for those factions exist. They had their books forever, it makes no sense to antagonise them by removing those books. And don't tell me they would lose nothing, because there is no way that there would be as much stuff in one book+supplement, as their is in one full codex for any given faction.

In fact you know what, Your arguments are of the same kind Russians used against Poles in the XIX and XX century. why they shouldn't be using the polish languge, change to being ortodox even by force and practicaly turn to be russians themself? I mean they are practicaly the same type of people.

That last little jab was pretty extreme. It'd be like saying that the arguments for keeping the Codexes separate are the same kind segregationists used against African Americans during the Jim Crow era. "It's been this way for a long time." and "We like it this way." These comparisons don't apply in this situation because we aren't discussing basic human rights.

They probably wouldn't lose anything through consolidation, if the argument that they share 85% of their data sheets and rules with the rest of the Marines is true. But, as with your argument that they would definitely lose something, it's impossible to know unless/until it happens, so arguments about losing fluff/uniqueness are inherently grounded in speculation.

Lastly, arguments based on "well it's been this way for a long time, so why rock the boat?" always irk me, because it's an argument of stagnation. Imagine if we used this in our "real lives". "Hey, I invented this round thing that helps to carry heavy loads from one place to another. I call it the wheel!" "Ok, but why do we need this? We've been carrying stuff on our backs for a long time and it's been fine."

Karol wrote:

At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest, no, not really. Look at the bolded sections.
My post can be broken down to "justify why they're different".
Your post? "They have different things".

isn't justification enough, the fact that they had separate and different rules in the past.

When the question is "why should they still have this", no, it's not a very sturdy justification at all.

All different law systems work like that.

The law also requires evidence and explanation to be provided.

However, we're not trying to make legal precedent. We're talking about if plastic models should use one set of numbers over another.

DA/SW/BA rules existed as separate rule sets, with different rules from marine ones for multiple decades.

I'm not contesting that. I am contesting why they still should have separate Codexes (but still separate rules!) when the state of the game around them has changed.

Saying that they are not different, and asking for proof seems very strange.

That's not what my argument has been at all. I've been saying all along that they're different. But Ultramarines are different from Iron Hands, yet still both use the core book.
Different doesn't mean "you should have a Codex", because they could also have a supplement. Why shouldn't Dark Angels?

Aren't the 30 years of separate books proof enough?

Not when the argument being made is why they are different.

Let's play out how this discussion is going:
"Why are they separate?"
"Because they've always been separate."
"Yes, but why?"
"Because they have unique units and abilities."
"Yes, but so do supplement Chapters. Why are DA/BA/SW separate in particular?"
"Because they've been separate for longer."
"Yes, but why should they be separate now?"
"Because they have unique abilities and units."
"So do supplement Chapters. Why aren't DA/BA/SW supplement Chapters?"
"Because..."
And so on and so forth.

And the second argument in favour of separate rules is that fandom for those factions exist. They had their books forever

Not really. They've had them since 2nd ed, but Ultramarines also had a full Codex back then too. Black Templars had their own too. Not to mention that the state of the game has moved on significantly from that point. Back when they were properly made separate, DA, as far as I'm aware, were the only Space Marine faction capable of having all Bike/Land Speeder armies, and all Terminator armies. Nowadays, anyone can do that.

The reason DA were unique wasn't because of unique units, it was because of unique organisation. My proposal takes from both - I wish to keep unique units that have significant reason to be unique, and boost DA with command benefits that reward taking pure Ravenwing/Deathwing.

it makes no sense to antagonise them by removing those books.

Like what happened to Ultramarines and Black Templars?

Furthermore, if everything in those books is kept (which my proposal does), why would that antagonise people? If they wanted Dark Angels to be an army built upon a core of Space Marine units, with unique rules and units sprinkled over the top, does it matter if it says 'Codex' or 'Supplement' on it?

And don't tell me they would lose nothing, because there is no way that there would be as much stuff in one book+supplement, as their is in one full codex for any given faction.

Why not?

Again, the Dark Angels Codex shares 85% of it's units with Codex: Space Marines. That's only 15% of unique stuff, stuff that I listed in an above post, which would easily fit in a supplement FOR Codex: Space Marines. What reason do you have why that wouldn't that fit in a supplement?

As for your "there's no way book+supplement would have more stuff than any full Codex" - what about, oh, Codex: Space Marines and any of it's supplements compared to any other Codex? Codex: Space Marines alone has more units than nearly any other Codex in the game, without including the supplements that you can apply on top of it.

In fact you know what, Your arguments are of the same kind Russians used against Poles in the XIX and XX century. why they shouldn't be using the polish languge, change to being ortodox even by force and practicaly turn to be russians themself? I mean they are practicaly the same type of people.

Wow.
There is a considerable difference between the eradication and suppression of real world cultures, and the removal of game rules for little plastic soldiers.

With all due respect, that is not applicable here.

People without answers don't like your questions.....

We can answer what the differences are. We can say x is different to y because of those differences.

But we cant give you more than that. No one outside of GW can give you that. Demanding we constantly answer further levels of 'but why ' is impossible after we get to the 'GW decided to split them in 2nd edition and haven't changed that decision '.

You're asking the impossible while constantly saying how you want it to be, and if we cant answer another layer of why its dismissed.

So, why should they be the same?

 BroodSpawn wrote:
We can answer what the differences are. We can say x is different to y because of those differences.

But we cant give you more than that. No one outside of GW can give you that. Demanding we constantly answer further levels of 'but why ' is impossible after we get to the 'GW decided to split them in 2nd edition and haven't changed that decision '.

Thank you. This is the crux of my argument - there is no real reason why they haven't changed that decision - and that's okay for [GW to do that. But I'm not GW.

All I ask is that my proposal is judged without the lens of "but GW kept them separate". I'm asking what mechanically and thematically is lost in my proposal, in a vacuum.

You're asking the impossible while constantly saying how you want it to be, and if we cant answer another layer of why its dismissed.

If you can't answer another layer of "why", maybe that's a sign that there wasn't much difference anyway.
I'm not asking for the impossible here.

So, why should they be the same?

What, aside from the fact that they share 85% of the same units? (Just done some vague estimates, I think Blood Angels would have roughly the same amount shared as Dark Angels, Space Wolves are the most unique, at just over 30% distinctly unique units - so, as I'm still making my mid up about SW, I'll address BA and DA for now).

They should be the same because the vast majority of their Codex is, and has been since their inception, mostly made up of generic Space Marine units. They should be consolidated because the mechanics of the game have changed to include stratagems that can permanently affect the abilities of an otherwise generic unit in game, and the potential exists to release a smaller book adding unique abilities and traits to an existing Codex, fulfilling the requirements of why the Dark Angels and Blood Angels once had separate Codexes. Adding to this the removal of the standard Force Organisation Chart, and the ability for anyone anywhere to build an army out of what were otherwise rarer units, some of the unique elements of the Dark Angels and Blood Angels (all Terminator armies and all jump pack armies) have already been long lost. Furthermore, the consolidation of the DA/BA into the standard Codex removes the need for emergency stand-in datasheets and FAQs when new units are added to Codex: Space Marines, as well as providing an incentive for existing Codex: Space Marine players to branch out into DA/BA Chapters, seeing as the buy-in is cheaper (£17.50 compared to £25), and vice versa. As proof of this general concept working, one only needs to look at the Legion lists in 30k to see how they achieve similar results from a shared core book, and at the existing supplements, which are proof of the successful diversification of otherwise "generic" Space Marine Chapters in the modern 40k ruleset.

But why should generic space marines have lore updated to signify the rules change?
Why should the Deathwing be relegated to just a terminator unit in your proposal?

Why should these changes be made on a fundamental level? Also you'll find that the 30k rule set uses a different design paradigm where even the chaos forces come from the same list, is that a statement in agreement that Chaos marines should be folded into a generic marine book? Chaos marine squads share an awful lot of similarities with Grey Hunters after all...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
We can answer what the differences are. We can say x is different to y because of those differences.

But we cant give you more than that. No one outside of GW can give you that. Demanding we constantly answer further levels of 'but why ' is impossible after we get to the 'GW decided to split them in 2nd edition and haven't changed that decision '.

Thank you. This is the crux of my argument - there is no real reason why they haven't changed that decision - and that's okay for [GW to do that. But I'm not GW.

All I ask is that my proposal is judged without the lens of "but GW kept them separate". I'm asking what mechanically and thematically is lost in my proposal, in a vacuum.

Then go put your "proposal" where it should be - in 40k Proposed Rules, not within threads in 40k General Discussion.

In General Discussion, we have to deal with what currently is and what historically has been, not what theoretically might be if someone else designs the system.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
We can answer what the differences are. We can say x is different to y because of those differences.

But we cant give you more than that. No one outside of GW can give you that. Demanding we constantly answer further levels of 'but why ' is impossible after we get to the 'GW decided to split them in 2nd edition and haven't changed that decision '.

Thank you. This is the crux of my argument - there is no real reason why they haven't changed that decision - and that's okay for [GW to do that. But I'm not GW.

All I ask is that my proposal is judged without the lens of "but GW kept them separate". I'm asking what mechanically and thematically is lost in my proposal, in a vacuum.

Then go put your "proposal" where it should be - in 40k Proposed Rules, not within threads in 40k General Discussion.

In General Discussion, we have to deal with what currently is and what historically has been, not what theoretically might be if someone else designs the system.

Given the topic of the thread at hand, it's pretty relevant to discuss how one could make the various full-Codex Marines supplements.

Except you cant argue with a valid idea. And when that idea is to change up thematic units in both the core codex and the new to be supplement... what else can we do? State how things are, get called to explain what makes things different and then get pulled into a design discussion that we're not here for?

The topic used to be what are the differences, now its 'justify why you dont like my design proposal'

All right, ya’ll have convinced me. Spikey marines should just be a supplemental codex for the base SM codex.

And I’m being serious.

 Stormonu wrote:
All right, ya’ll have convinced me. Spikey marines should just be a supplemental codex for the base SM codex.

And I’m being serious.

You're not wrong, it would certainly be an improvement over the current state of the game.

Currently putting any CSM unit on the table is an exercise in futility as you are using objectively inferior units.

 Stormonu wrote:
All right, ya’ll have convinced me. Spikey marines should just be a supplemental codex for the base SM codex.

And I’m being serious.

Renegades could work, but the Legions (with all their Daemon engines and whatnot) should probably be a separate book, similar to GK.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Renegades could work, but the Legions (with all their Daemon engines and whatnot) should probably be a separate book, similar to GK.

The only Daemon Engine I would be sad to lose would be the Lord of Skulls, the rest of them are mediocre at best.

 Stormonu wrote:
All right, ya’ll have convinced me. Spikey marines should just be a supplemental codex for the base SM codex.

And I’m being serious.

I'm all for relegating Renegades into the Loyalist codex actually. It makes more sense than the current way of handling it.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Renegades could work, but the Legions (with all their Daemon engines and whatnot) should probably be a separate book, similar to GK.

The only Daemon Engine I would be sad to lose would be the Lord of Skulls, the rest of them are mediocre at best.

Just make them something marines use. the dino chaos demons, just a melee or shoty leviathan. lord of skull, just a some very big knight or a small titan. bug lords of different types a primaris dreadnought, just with a character trait.

Orcs and eldar could be redone like that too.

Don't mind me, just dropping by for my daily intake of salt, shade and tea.

IMHO the thread should be closed. Until GW does make DA/BA/SW into a supplement or not, all this arguing is a Moot point.

For the record I like SW, and I wouldn't mind a supplement or a new codex, I'll still have my Wolves wolves!

Sgt Smudge,

The Dark Angels have unique units (before even talking about Named Characters) and do not have access to a slice of units that mainline Chapters have. I have my Dark Talon and Dark Shroud but miss out on Centurians etc. I have flexible Terminators but miss out on Vanguard Veterans/Sternguard. That is why they have a Codex and not a Supplement. They also have plenty of long-existing distinct lore. The DA Codex is fairly tight and is not hurting anybody. Saving $10 on a supplement is not a saving when I also have to buy the Space Marine Codex and now I have to bring both to game night.

Your proposal makes it confusing/convoluted and requires two books where one suffices. I do. It want to go back to the days of Index 1. Yes I need the Phobos update FAQ but that is a temporary free patch. Everybody has FAQs.

Now, I think at the designers missed an opportunity with the Deathwing and Ravenwing to make them count as Troops in certain circumstances, but that is beside the point.

Cheers,

T2B

The thread has kinda gotten off track from it's beginnings, but I don't see any need to close it. Just get back to discussing the OP's topic: is there a practical reason why these sub-Factions have their own Codex instead of being a supplement?

Over the last 15 pages, I've yet to see any practical reasons for the separation, but have seen (and understand) plenty of subjective reasons for it. I've also seen a lot of strawmen and other poor debate tricks, so there's that too.

Hopefully this thread is winding down. Feels like it.

I think my preferred solution would be fro DA/BA/SW to be supplements. Possibly large supplements, losing nothing, though. Done as additional options atop existing units for their super special things (Azrael shouldn't be generic), but as additional baseline options for most upgrades (Heavy Flamer Tacs, etc).

GK likely should remain seperate. There are a few shared entries, so could be "based" on Marines. But they don't share any Marines themselves. Just support.

In a perfect world, even Chaos Marines could be a Marine supplement. In fact, I think CSM would be better off following a merge/supplement model than they are now - as Death Guard and Thousand Sons should really be supplements. And if you wanted a pure VOTLW force, that's never recruited a single body since the Great Crusade ever, that could be yet another supplement (but doesn't need to be).

But putting almost all Chaos Marines in the Marine book and making the CSM book VOTLW-only would be completely backwards. Now you're duplicating 90% of the book in two places, just so people can feel better fielding pure-VOTLW armies. There's no actual upside here. Why would you print Sorcerers and Marks and Daemon Princes in the Loyalist book, too? Besides, to play most Legions, you'd need both books - most legions have recruited at least some members since the Great Crusade.

BroodSpawn wrote:But why should generic space marines have lore updated to signify the rules change?

In all fairness, my proposal changes very little lore about how Space Marine Chapters are portrayed (mixed squads and chainsword Tacticals already exist in fluff).

Why should the Deathwing be relegated to just a terminator unit in your proposal?

Because aside from two things (Inner Circle rule, which can be represented by Chapter Tactics or similar, and a Watcher in the Dark), they have no lore reason why they shouldn't be.
Look at it this way - Dark Angels have the "unique" Deathwing Cataphractii and Deathwing Tartaros datasheets. Aside from the Inner Circle rule alone, they are identical to the ones found in Codex: Space Marines. And yet they bear the "Deathwing" name.

They're relegated (such a loaded phrase, it implies they lose something - which, in my proposal, they don't) to being normal Terminators, because they basically are.
Deathwing Knights? Now they're unique.

Why should these changes be made on a fundamental level? Also you'll find that the 30k rule set uses a different design paradigm where even the chaos forces come from the same list, is that a statement in agreement that Chaos marines should be folded into a generic marine book? Chaos marine squads share an awful lot of similarities with Grey Hunters after all...

The reason Chaos and Loyalists are mixed in 40k is because the two hadn't grown separate enough. By 40k, Chaos forces have far more Daemonic and corrupted units, and 40k Marines have new post-Heresy units and equipment. Now, representing Renegade Chapters with C:SM rules? There's something in that. Representing the Traitor Legions? Far too much difference.

For what it's worth, about 35% of the Chaos Codex is directly equivalent to their Loyalist brethren. That's not enough for me to warrant combining.

Jimbobbyish wrote:IMHO the thread should be closed. Until GW does make DA/BA/SW into a supplement or not, all this arguing is a Moot point.

While true, it would also make a great many threads on Dakka irrelevant as a result. But, you have a point.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Sgt Smudge,

The Dark Angels have unique units (before even talking about Named Characters) and do not have access to a slice of units that mainline Chapters have. I have my Dark Talon and Dark Shroud but miss out on Centurians etc. I have flexible Terminators but miss out on Vanguard Veterans/Sternguard. That is why they have a Codex and not a Supplement.

Okay, but why don't they have Centurions? Why don't they also have Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans? Even if their 1st Company don't use them, they still have Company Veterans, surely there's nothing stopping them strapping on a jump pack?

I don't have a problem with having Dark Talons and Darkshrouds, they're completely unique, but I don't understand why this means they can't take Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons, beyond creating artificial differences. That's my main point here - many of the "differences" don't really have a reason to exist in lore. What about Centurions means that Dark Angels don't take them? What about mixed Terminator Squads, that have been seen used by other non-Unforgiven Chapters?

They also have plenty of long-existing distinct lore.

And most of that lore is about how the Deathwing are deployed en masse, which is the reason they're unique - not because they're the only Terminators with mixed arms.

And regarding long existing distinct lore (which I'm not disputing) - don't all the First Founders have that kind of lore? Iron Hands and Black Templars specifically? (Yes, I know they're not First Founding, but they got thrown in there too).

The DA Codex is fairly tight and is not hurting anybody. Saving $10 on a supplement is not a saving when I also have to buy the Space Marine Codex and now I have to bring both to game night.

But that's a bit of a double standard for the other Chapters that are just as unique lore-wise, yet got lumped in together.

Not only that, but even now, you're having to take multiple books to the table, if you want the Angels of Death abilities and Phobos Marines.

Now, I think at the designers missed an opportunity with the Deathwing and Ravenwing to make them count as Troops in certain circumstances, but that is beside the point.

There is no mechanical reason for them to be Troops. The main reason Troops are valued if because they grant easy access to high amounts of Command Points via Battalions and Brigades. Instead, I think a better solution is to reward players for leaning into that "Deathwing and Ravenwing deploy en mass" feeling by giving detachments only made up of their respective keyword a large bonus of Command Points. That way, we get to utilise the existing infrastructure in the game to pull this kind of stuff off!

Before we had these super customisable detachments, I would have agreed with you, but right now, with the resources the game provides, I think it's worth taking advantage of.

Bharring wrote:I think my preferred solution would be fro DA/BA/SW to be supplements. Possibly large supplements, losing nothing, though. Done as additional options atop existing units for their super special things (Azrael shouldn't be generic), but as additional baseline options for most upgrades (Heavy Flamer Tacs, etc).

Absolutely as large supplements, though I wouldn't want to charge more. I'm okay "losing" units that are basically copypaste jobs (Sanguinary Novitiate? It's an Apothecary with a new name!), but I wouldn't want to make any list invalid.

Basically, I want DA/BA/SW to be able to have the same lists they always have (and even more stuff, such as my Deathwing CP buff idea), but is there anything wrong with drawing their core units from another book, which is already what they're doing in everything but name?

A bonus to being a supplement is that when "generic" Marines get updates (like their new Codex), you'll also get those benefits, instead of having to wait for GW to eventually "get around to it". That's a big thing to me: getting quicker rules and changes.

 flandarz wrote:
A bonus to being a supplement is that when "generic" Marines get updates (like their new Codex), you'll also get those benefits, instead of having to wait for GW to eventually "get around to it". That's a big thing to me: getting quicker rules and changes.

Much less awkward as well with having the same rules for all loyalist marines. I have seen some succesful soup lists that have included both BA(still have the most reliable smash captains) and some of the new codex marines. Now of course they didnt take tactical marines with different costs but a Thunderhammer costs very different in the 2 detachments as well as having access to 2 slightly different versions of the standard marine stratagems. Exactly the same name but different wording. The 2 "Honour the Chapter" stratagems have a very important difference in that the new one needs an enemy within 1" and works on any adeptus astartes unit (except for the red ones in the same army list for some reason) and not just infantry or bike. If using Dante and Shrike in the same list their Chapter Master ability would work differently, thankfully Dante suck too much for that to ever happen...

This bothers me more than pure balance reasons. If I want to play something more powerful I can just use Raven Guard or White Scars rules for my Blood Angels but having different versions of the same rules really suck.

 flandarz wrote:
I'm relatively certain the evidence boils down to "GW says they should be separate", "I like having my own, separate Codex", and "but what if I lose units and flavor".

I don't know what is hard to understand. It's not the players that keep them seperate, GW has shown it doesn't give a crap what we like or not as far as why the other marine books have unique books. While it would make them a touch more money to have all the marine sub factions in supplement books, it also serves a purpose to have their their own books. It gives them capability to spread marine releases out over a longer period.

They drop core marine stuff, spend a whole season promoting and dropping marine stuff, spend a couple months then bam, BA drops, more kits that are that army specific and they can squeeze in some vanilla kits with it too take a month with that, wait a month..Bam SW drop, do the same stuff, etc, etc. It lets them trickle our marines of all the various flavors over the course of a couple years before they begin the process again. Makes it feel more organic that way and less forced then it all dropping with the core codex. Though who is to say they may not eventually do supplements for even those books ? Like for SW, Supplements for the notable Great Companies, etc, etc.

I think if we’re honest with ourselves, we all know the actual reason these books are separate codexes and not supplements. As with everything that GW do, it comes down to money.

My guess is that GW believe that they can sell a SW/DA/BA player two codexes using this model - the SM primary one and their chapter specific one. Why would a player of these factions buy the SM codex? Because it is always released earlier and always buffs marines. GW likely assume that players of those factions will proxy as another chapter until their own snowflake book is released, at which point they’ll snap it up (even if it’s not competitive).

Why sell a person a codex and less expensive supplement, when they can sell two codexes? It makes no business sense and from this thread we can see that players are absolutely fine with it. The only risk with this model is that the SW/BA/DA player doesn’t purchase the base SM codex, but I guess GW have stats on that and know that this method is more profitable.

The only other reasonable explanation I can think of, if the above is false, is that GW believe the backlash of consolidating the snowflake chapters into the base SM codex with supplements would be so heinous that they avoid it to appease the players. Again, this has somewhat evidenced itself during this thread.

I still can't see why it would cause such an outrage to change the stated marine codices to supplements.

It shouldn't be a problem for all of them to keep their unique datasheets. Maybe some "basic-marine" datasheets need point adjustments, maybe some weapon options need to be slightly different, but all that could be done within a supplement, couldn't it?

Making them supplements, regarding basic marine rule interactions, updates, erratas and faqs, doesn't have to mean, that they loose their unique flavour (and they shouldn't loose that, because every single one of them has it's place within the fluff for years).